5 ms·

"Between now and 2038, there’s a 99.7% chance of a 6.7-or-larger earthquake striking somewhere in California" I can't see that date without thinking a

"Between now and 2038, there’s a 99.7% chance of a 6.7-or-larger earthquake striking somewhere in California" I can't see that date without thinking a 32bit timestamp prevented them from calculating over a larger range. :)

ekianjo 13y ago
6-7 is not THAT bad. Most modern buildings should be able to handle this relatively fine. In Japan usually nothing recent falls apart until after 7. Anyway, in terms of casualties, it all depends where the epicenter exactly is, and at what time of the day or night the earthquake strikes.
- mikeg8 13y ago
  But the average age of a house in japan is not even close to the average age of many San Francisco homes...
  - ZirconCode 13y ago
    That is mostly because of war, and not due to natural disasters.
    - mikeg8 13y ago
      This has some truth but not the whole picture. I recently listened to a fascinating Podcast from Freakenomics Radio called, "Are Japanese homes disposable?" where they discussed a huge cultural difference regarding how the Japanese view their homes. When they purchase a home, they usually tear it down and build a new one from scratch. Once a home is built, the Japanese invest almost zero money/effort into maintenance. The average half-life of a home there is 38 years compared to over 100 in the US (not just SF). Growth in their construction industry is rapid despite almost stagnant economic growth. Anyway, it was just super interesting and definitely worth a listen to, especially because "earthquake fear" is an overstated factor in their housing production.
      - ekianjo 13y ago
        > Once a home is built, the Japanese invest almost zero money/effort into maintenance. Not really true. There are hundreds of companies in every city specializing in what Japanese call "Reform", which means making older houses/building more modern (either through maintenance, renovation, replacement of installations and so on).
        gwern 13y ago
        > There are hundreds of companies in every city specializing in what Japanese call "Reform" Is that more or less than one would expect for one of the wealthiest & most technologically sophisticated countries in the world?
        mikeg8 13y ago
        Maybe. I'm know very little about Japanese culture but based on what I heard recently from that podcast, the statics they mentioned regarding home maintenance contradict your statement. Or maybe there are hundreds of companies but the reforms only touch a small fraction of total structures and those structures are non-residential...
      - adregan 13y ago
        2 summers ago there were a couple of great shows at some Tokyo Museums about Tokyo's Urban Metabolism[0]. Not only are homes quickly replaced as you have stated, but the neighborhood structure, created by the commercial buildings on the main roadways and the small homes on the interior, forms a firebreak. With earthquakes, fire is the greatest threat after the shaking stops. 0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolism_(architecture) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolism_(architecture)
    - brazzy 13y ago
      I believe the point that mikeg was making is that the on average newer Japanese houses are more likely to be be built specifically earthquake-proof. Actually, the low average age of houses in Japan is not at all due to the war (it's much smaller than 60 years), but due to cultural/economical issues: http://www.reddit.com/r/japan/comments/vv3bf/why_do_japanese_houses_lose_all_their_value_after/ http://www.reddit.com/r/japan/comments/vv3bf/why_do_japanese...
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    Well, WW2 went there first. Most of Japanese cities were burnt to the ground, so yeah, most buildings are relatively recent.
- eloisant 13y ago
  I actually believe the construction in Japan are much more reliable than construction in San Francisco. The earthquake risk is everywhere in Japan, so that's a major point that all construction rules take into account. Those rules are revised regularly, getting stricter as technology permits it. A good chunk of the property owners fees go into renovation to make the building earthquake-safe, and an building decreases in value as it gets older because people know it won't be as strong in case of an earthquake. On the other hand earthquake is not a problem in most places in US, even California doesn't compare to Japan in terms of earthquake risks - outside the Bay Area. So the whole country isn't thinking in terms of earthquake protection, and that makes a difference. So San Francisco will certainly do much better than Turkey or Haiti, but I don't think it will resist as well as Tokyo.
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    > The earthquake risk is everywhere in Japan, Not completely true. There's a risk map established by the government in Japan and several areas are considered "safe". For example, Kyoto has not had major earthquakes for centuries. > A good chunk of the property owners fees go into renovation to make the building earthquake-safe That's not true either. Usually buildings have a "shelf life" in Japan and whenever they reach the end they end up being destroyed and replaced by newer ones (built with the latest standards). Besides, older constructions can be actually pretty solid, it's rather all the newer stuff with large window panes and less walls that tend to be more fragile.
    - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
      Kobe is right next to Kyoto and recently had a major earthquake (1995?). A lot of the older Japanese construction, especially out of Tokyo, is poorly insulated and kind of flimsy. I was very surprised since I always thought of Japan as being rich. I'm sure the wood would do well in the earthquake, but that's the other problem: wood eventually rots and needs to be replaced (those Shinto temples are rebuilt every 30 or 40 years I think).
      - ekianjo 13y ago
- balbaugh 13y ago
  This article states 6.7 or LARGER, not 6-7.
ot 13y ago
19 January 2038 is the world's end date according to the Unix demigods prophecies, so it doesn't make much sense to predict what's going to happen afterwards anyway.

ekianjo 13y ago

6-7 is not THAT bad. Most modern buildings should be able to handle this relatively fine. In Japan usually nothing recent falls apart until after 7. Anyway, in terms of casualties, it all depends where the epicenter exactly is, and at what time of the day or night the earthquake strikes.

mikeg8 13y ago
But the average age of a house in japan is not even close to the average age of many San Francisco homes...
- ZirconCode 13y ago
  That is mostly because of war, and not due to natural disasters.
  - mikeg8 13y ago
    This has some truth but not the whole picture. I recently listened to a fascinating Podcast from Freakenomics Radio called, "Are Japanese homes disposable?" where they discussed a huge cultural difference regarding how the Japanese view their homes. When they purchase a home, they usually tear it down and build a new one from scratch. Once a home is built, the Japanese invest almost zero money/effort into maintenance. The average half-life of a home there is 38 years compared to over 100 in the US (not just SF). Growth in their construction industry is rapid despite almost stagnant economic growth. Anyway, it was just super interesting and definitely worth a listen to, especially because "earthquake fear" is an overstated factor in their housing production.
    - ekianjo 13y ago
      > Once a home is built, the Japanese invest almost zero money/effort into maintenance. Not really true. There are hundreds of companies in every city specializing in what Japanese call "Reform", which means making older houses/building more modern (either through maintenance, renovation, replacement of installations and so on).
      - gwern 13y ago
        > There are hundreds of companies in every city specializing in what Japanese call "Reform" Is that more or less than one would expect for one of the wealthiest & most technologically sophisticated countries in the world?
      - mikeg8 13y ago
        Maybe. I'm know very little about Japanese culture but based on what I heard recently from that podcast, the statics they mentioned regarding home maintenance contradict your statement. Or maybe there are hundreds of companies but the reforms only touch a small fraction of total structures and those structures are non-residential...
    - adregan 13y ago
      2 summers ago there were a couple of great shows at some Tokyo Museums about Tokyo's Urban Metabolism[0]. Not only are homes quickly replaced as you have stated, but the neighborhood structure, created by the commercial buildings on the main roadways and the small homes on the interior, forms a firebreak. With earthquakes, fire is the greatest threat after the shaking stops. 0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolism_(architecture) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolism_(architecture)
  - brazzy 13y ago
    I believe the point that mikeg was making is that the on average newer Japanese houses are more likely to be be built specifically earthquake-proof. Actually, the low average age of houses in Japan is not at all due to the war (it's much smaller than 60 years), but due to cultural/economical issues: http://www.reddit.com/r/japan/comments/vv3bf/why_do_japanese_houses_lose_all_their_value_after/ http://www.reddit.com/r/japan/comments/vv3bf/why_do_japanese...
- ekianjo 13y ago
  Well, WW2 went there first. Most of Japanese cities were burnt to the ground, so yeah, most buildings are relatively recent.
eloisant 13y ago
I actually believe the construction in Japan are much more reliable than construction in San Francisco. The earthquake risk is everywhere in Japan, so that's a major point that all construction rules take into account. Those rules are revised regularly, getting stricter as technology permits it. A good chunk of the property owners fees go into renovation to make the building earthquake-safe, and an building decreases in value as it gets older because people know it won't be as strong in case of an earthquake. On the other hand earthquake is not a problem in most places in US, even California doesn't compare to Japan in terms of earthquake risks - outside the Bay Area. So the whole country isn't thinking in terms of earthquake protection, and that makes a difference. So San Francisco will certainly do much better than Turkey or Haiti, but I don't think it will resist as well as Tokyo.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  > The earthquake risk is everywhere in Japan, Not completely true. There's a risk map established by the government in Japan and several areas are considered "safe". For example, Kyoto has not had major earthquakes for centuries. > A good chunk of the property owners fees go into renovation to make the building earthquake-safe That's not true either. Usually buildings have a "shelf life" in Japan and whenever they reach the end they end up being destroyed and replaced by newer ones (built with the latest standards). Besides, older constructions can be actually pretty solid, it's rather all the newer stuff with large window panes and less walls that tend to be more fragile.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    Kobe is right next to Kyoto and recently had a major earthquake (1995?). A lot of the older Japanese construction, especially out of Tokyo, is poorly insulated and kind of flimsy. I was very surprised since I always thought of Japan as being rich. I'm sure the wood would do well in the earthquake, but that's the other problem: wood eventually rots and needs to be replaced (those Shinto temples are rebuilt every 30 or 40 years I think).
    - ekianjo 13y ago
balbaugh 13y ago
This article states 6.7 or LARGER, not 6-7.

ot 13y ago

19 January 2038 is the world's end date according to the Unix demigods prophecies, so it doesn't make much sense to predict what's going to happen afterwards anyway.